Interesting article on what Kodak could learn from Polaroid
The article is written by Christopher Bonanos, author of the book, "Instant: The Story of Polaroid".
I don't see this stabilisation at all!
As it turns out, the film business has fallen so far that it may have stabilized. As Mooney said, among professionals, “there isn’t that much digital incursion left.”
Either his figures do not fit, or he counts them apart. Eitherway I find this most irritating.
At its peak in the late 1990s, Kodak sold about a billion rolls of film in the United States each year. Last year, it sold roughly 20 million.......But one product line continues to work for Kodak: the “one-time use,” or disposable, camera.... Amazingly, 31 million disposable cameras were sold in 2011.
I totally agree on the standing the name Polaroid still has.
But I got no idea what the title of that article is hinting at. Polaroid as manufacturer is dead. Kodak, Fuji and Agfa are alive. Learning to survive from a deceased??
Polaroid has become nothing more than a brand name. There is nothing left of Polaroid film except for a refurbished machine the Impossible Project bought.
What the author is writing about is not using Polaroid as a good example, but as an example of what not to do. "Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."
Another one of the problems with the article is that the author doesn't have any understanding of what it takes to manufacture film. Kodak can't do a small run, so it can't sell to tiny niche markets, like a Kodachrome run or a Plus-X run. The author has some good points, but aside from indexing executive pay to company profits, Kodak is doing all that it can.
Agreed...can't really see the connection between Kodak and Polaroid. Polaroid cameras were a niche area so far as the general public were concerned...the novelty of instant pictures, but normally one copy only, quite expensive films, and fairly bulky cameras. For the casual snapshotter, a small 35mm, Instamatic or APS camera would score in most respects, and there were plenty of one-hour services if prints were needed quickly. And now, of course, digital.
Originally Posted by AgX
The Polaroid brand name does seem to hold some value, though any company needs to keep close control on branded third-party goods using its name.
What does the author say?
-) Kodak lost 98% revenue in the US-film market
-) Kodak should dare to raise prices as aficionados would pay them
-) Kodak should not try to sell film by means of first selling cheap cameras
-) Kodak should sell single-use cameras
-) Kodak should contract-manufacture for Lomography Comp.
-) Kodak should stick to manufacture high-end photographic films as they are unique on the market and could set higher margins on them
-) Kodak should make something from the goodwill its name has
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The most impressive pair of numbers (to me at least) in that article is 20 million rolls of Kodak film sold versus 1 million packs of TIP film. Note that Kodak kicked Ektachrome into the curb because it made only a tiny percentage of their overall film sales so chances are more TIP film packs were sold than rolls of Ektachrome. Remember that TIP can neither match the precious colors of Ektachrome nor does a TIP photo have the resolution and the many flexible options for use and post processing. And it's much more expensive than a roll of Ektachrome and has only 8 vs. 36 frames, too.
If Kodak couldn't sell more Ektachrome than TIP by a large factor, their strategy and marketing are abject failures, and blaming their demise on the "digital revolution" is nothing but a sleazy cover up for that.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
You are using attitudes of the past to reflect on consumer sales of today.
I read this article as well. I didn't agree with the author that film prices need to jacked up to boutique prices.....ilford is a small company and they manage to sell film at competitive prices and if I'm correct make a profit. I do think Kodak was horribly managed. I think had they made a serious effort at digital (they had one of the first digital cameras) they would have had the resources to make a profit off of they're film and taken full advantage of the lomography movement.
Manufacturing costs and demand.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
The formulated batch sizes for Ektachrome were too large so they had to throw away barrels of dye and emulsion for each run, and the cost to reformulate the film wouldn't have turned a profit. When new regulations meant that Fujifilm had to reformulate Acros 400 in 120, it was discontinued due to lack of profit due to the cost of reformulation. The demand just wasn't there to support the cost of reformulation, for both Kodak and Fujifilm.
sheet film prices for kodak films are already jacked up to be 2x the price of ilford
Originally Posted by cepwin
seems to me they are already boutique prices ...